Electroencephalographic Seizures in Emergency Department Patients After Treatment
for Convulsive Status EpilepticusZehtabchi S, Silbergleit R, Chamberlain JM, et al. J Clin Neurophysiol.
2020. Publish Ahead of Print. doi:10.1097/WNP.0000000000000800Purpose: It is unknown how often and how early EEG is obtained in patients presenting
with status epilepticus. The Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial enrolled
patients with benzodiazepine-refractory seizures and randomized participants to
fosphenytoin, levetiracetam, or valproate. The use of early EEG, including frequency of
electrographic seizures, was determined in Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial
participants. Methods: Secondary analysis of 475 enrollments at 58 hospitals to determine
the frequency of EEG performed within 24 hours of presentation. The EEG type, the
prevalence of electrographic seizures, and characteristics associated with obtaining early
EEG were recorded. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were calculated as appropriate
for univariate and bivariate comparisons. Odds ratios are reported with 95% confidence
intervals. Results: A total of 278 of 475 patients (58%) in the Established Status
Epilepticus Treatment Trial cohort underwent EEG within 24 hours (median time to EEG:
5 hours [interquartile range: 3–10]). Electrographic seizure prevalence was 14% (95%
confidence interval, 10%–19%; 39/278) in the entire cohort and 13% (95% confidence
interval, 7%–21%) in the subgroup of patients meeting the primary outcome of the
Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (clinical treatment success within
60 minutes of randomization). Among subjects diagnosed with electrographic seizures (39),
15 (38%; 95% confidence interval, 25%–54%) had no clinical correlate on the video EEG
recording. Conclusions: Electrographic seizures may occur in patients who stop seizing
clinically after treatment of convulsive status epilepticus. Clinical correlates might not
be present during electrographic seizures. These findings support early initiation of EEG
recordings in patients suffering from convulsive status epilepticus, including those with
clinical evidence of treatment success.When patients presenting with convulsive seizures or convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) do
not promptly improve after control of the motor activity, ongoing nonconvulsive seizures (NCS,
also called electrographic seizures) or nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE, also called
electrographic SE) is a concern. A 1998 study from the Virginia Commonwealth University Status
Epilepticus program demonstrated that after control of CSE, 14% of patients showed persistent
NCSE with continuous electroencephalographic monitoring (cEEG).
The VA Cooperative CSE study showed that 11% of patients in whom overt SE was
successfully treated had recurrence of NCSE.The recently reported Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) comparing
levetiracetam (LEV), fosphenytoin (fPHT), and valproate (VPA) reported similar effectiveness
for all 3 antiseizure medications (ASM); CSE was controlled in 47% of patients receiving LEV,
45% receiving fPHT, and 46% receiving VPA.
Patients were enrolled in this trial if they continued to have CSE after initial
treatment with benzodiazepines, and the primary endpoint of treatment success was cessation of
convulsions and improvement in level of consciousness. Use of cEEG was left to the discretion
of the treating providers and was not used in primary endpoint determination.In a secondary analysis of the ESETT data, Zehtabchi and colleagues
report the results of the EEGs performed on 278 of the 475 (58%) patients enrolled in
ESETT. The median time to start of EEG recording was 5 hours (IQR = 310 hours). Electrographic
seizures occurred in 14% of study patients (95% CI, 10%19%), and 38% of these did not have
obvious clinical features. Importantly, there was no difference in the prevalence of seizures
in patients considered a treatment success (13%, 95% CI, 7%21%) and those that were not (15%
(95% CI, 7%30%). In 7 patients, EEG was obtained within 60 minutes of enrollment, and one of
these (14%) had electrographic seizures. Interestingly, this patient had been deemed a
treatment success before the EEG was started.In this study, EEG was more likely to be performed in adults than children (OR = 1.75; 95%
CI, 1.212.53) and in patients who were intubated than those who were not (OR = 3.57 (95% CI,
2.106.07). As might be expected, patients who were thought to be treatment successes by the
investigator were less likely to undergo cEEG than those in whom SE was thought to be ongoing
(OR = .39, 95% CI, 0.27.57).Many studies over the last few decades have shown that about 20% of critically ill adult
patients undergoing continuous electroencephalographic monitoring (cEEG) have electrographic
seizures or SE; in pediatrics, the number may be even higher.[5-7] While one of the
foremost indications for cEEG is diagnosis of nonconvulsive seizures and NCSE in patients with
impaired consciousness, another common indication is to determine the effectiveness of treatment.
The latter includes cEEG for patients with CSE after convulsions have stopped but
impaired mentation persists. Indeed, the presence of convulsions prior to starting cEEG
increases the likelihood of detecting electrographic seizures.[5,9,10]Importantly, the 14% rate of electrographic seizure occurrence after cessations of
convulsions in CSE in the Zehtabchi et al study is remarkably consistent with earlier
observational studies and randomized clinical trials, which showed a rate of persistent
electrographic seizures of approximately 1114%.[1,2] Despite a separation of about 20 years between publication dates, these
studies show comparable results.Persistence of seizures after CSE is not limited to adult patients. Pediatric CSE studies
suggest a comparably high rate of continued electrographic seizures following cessation of the
convulsions. In one study of 98 children who presented in CSE, 32 (32.7%) had ongoing seizures
after the convulsions; 46.9% of these patients had NCSE.
A previous diagnosis of epilepsy and interictal abnormalities on EEG were more often
associated with persistence of electrographic seizures. Neonates frequently have dissociation
between motor activity and electrographic seizures after treatment with ASM. Studies suggest
that between 4258% of neonates presenting with convulsions had continued electrographic
seizures after the cessation of the motor manifestations of seizures.[12,13]Zehtabchi et al noted that 38% of patients in the current study did not have an obvious
clinical correlate to the ongoing seizures. Other studies have noted that a clinical correlate
is frequently absent when electrographic seizures are seen in comatose patients.[5,6,14] Lack of obvious clinical features makes
diagnosis of SE more challenging; the resolution of motor activity is tempting to interpret as
resolution of the electrographic seizure activity as well. cEEG is the most viable method of
confirming the presence of electrographic seizures in such patients.A recent review on the value of cEEG after CSE noted several factors that increase the risk
of electrographic seizures after CSE.• Younger patients are at higher risk of continued electrographic seizures after CSE
compared to adults. Neonates and infants are at the highest risk.• Presence of structural abnormalities (such as prior stroke, brain tumor, and
traumatic brain injury) increases the risk of having electrographic seizures.• Patients with a severely depressed mental status are at higher risk of having
electrographic seizures than those who are awake.There are features of the initial EEG obtained after convulsions stop that are suggestive of
the occurrence of electrographic seizures. Of course, these risks factors can only be assessed
after an EEG has been obtained. These abnormalities include epileptiform and periodic
discharges and background abnormalities.In the cohort of patients reported by Zehtabchi et al, adults were more likely than children
to get cEEG. Given the higher frequency of electrographic seizures in children than adults
reported in literature, the opposite would have been expected. However, they also note that
comatose patients were more likely to get cEEG; this is consistent with other studies.
Interestingly, while the lower frequency of cEEG in patients that were clinically thought to
be successfully treated is understandable, the frequency of seizure was comparable in the
group considered to be a treatment success and the group that was not. This suggests that
relying on clinical improvement may result in overlooking some patients with electrographic
seizures.Diagnosing and treating ongoing electrographic seizures is important in improving long-term
outcomes. In one study, children with electrographic seizures for more than 12 minutes per
hour were more likely to have worse neurological outcomes compared to those with a lower
seizure burden.
Another pediatric study showed that electrographic SE, but not brief electrographic
seizures, resulted in worse neurodevelopmental outcomes.With their recent study, Zehtabchi et al have reestablished the frequency of ongoing
electrographic seizures after the control of convulsions in patients presenting in CSE. They
have also reaffirmed the need for cEEG in these patients. These investigators, as well as the
investigators of ESETT, must be congratulated and commended for designing and conducting a
challenging clinical trial that has provided excellent data that informs of us of how
effective various ASM are for the treatment of established SE.Randomized trials for SE are difficult and complicated. Future clinical trials in SE will
need to consider how to confirm the termination of CSE. A recent review discusses the issues
that need to be addressed in clinical trials in various stages of SE (early, established,
refractory and super refractory).
While the emergent deployment of EEG in the diagnosis and treatment of SE remains
challenging, technological advances have made “quick look” EEGs possible. Confirmation of true
termination of SE will not only allow better differentiation between ASM in clinical trials
but also allow more effective treatment of critically ill patients.
Authors: Jaideep Kapur; Jordan Elm; James M Chamberlain; William Barsan; James Cloyd; Daniel Lowenstein; Shlomo Shinnar; Robin Conwit; Caitlyn Meinzer; Hannah Cock; Nathan Fountain; Jason T Connor; Robert Silbergleit Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Susan T Herman; Nicholas S Abend; Thomas P Bleck; Kevin E Chapman; Frank W Drislane; Ronald G Emerson; Elizabeth E Gerard; Cecil D Hahn; Aatif M Husain; Peter W Kaplan; Suzette M LaRoche; Marc R Nuwer; Mark Quigg; James J Riviello; Sarah E Schmitt; Liberty A Simmons; Tammy N Tsuchida; Lawrence J Hirsch Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: Katherine L Wagenman; Taylor P Blake; Sarah M Sanchez; Maria T Schultheis; Jerilynn Radcliffe; Robert A Berg; Dennis J Dlugos; Alexis A Topjian; Nicholas S Abend Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Hansel M Greiner; Katherine Holland; James L Leach; Paul S Horn; Andrew D Hershey; Douglas F Rose Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Eric T Payne; Xiu Yan Zhao; Helena Frndova; Kristin McBain; Rohit Sharma; James S Hutchison; Cecil D Hahn Journal: Brain Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 13.501